Hi , I haven't been on here in a while but I found an interesting quarter it looks its like its the overdate except one thing it doesn't have the overlapping on the bottom 8. If you look at the picture you can see the possible version on top and the real version on the bottom. If you look at both you can see what looks like perfectly straight lines coming out of the left top of the 8. You can also see what looks like the tip to the 7 on the right hand side. The coin meets other diagnostics as well. It has no step, it has the die marker beside the right star, and although I didn't show it in this pic there is also a definite form on an E next to her knee. In addition to these die markers it meets alot of the die markers from another sites forum topic. I hightlighted those die markers as well. What I dont' undersand is where is the rest of the 7 ??? Has anyone seen one like this? Is it a version of the overdate and would it be attributable by any service. Please let me know your thoughts Thank you Mike
Maybe a later die state (i.e: the 7 wore off)...otherwise, no go IMHO. The biggest and most obvious part of the 7 (the leg) is seems to be missing altogether in your first picture; which should show up in the bottom part of the 8.
I kind of want to actually see something going on there , like on the real one....esp. since the photo is pretty magnified. 1955 Poorman's double die anyone ?
The big one that catches my eye rigt away is the -[/size=3] object sticking out the left top on both of the coins and also the fact it has lots of the other die markers for this variety. Hmmm so then nobody else has seen anything like this before then ? If anybody else has any other ideas or thoughts let me know I will try to look up Mr. Cline the quarter specialist and see what thoughts he might have. Keep any other thoughts coming thank you Mike
Lets think about how the "overdate" was made originally. It is really a "Design Hub Doubling" where the working die that made the 1918/7-S coin was hubbed first by one hubbing die bearing one date and put aside for metallurgic reason and then later hubbed a second time ( normal procedure), but in this case with a hubbing die bearing the other date. Since the date was the main discernable difference between the 2 hubbing dies, it is the apparent total result. But here is where a problem with "markers" is concerned. The small raised portion that you see at the upper left of the 8 on the posted coin here, and the 18/7 could be due to at least one hubbing of the normal 1918 working die, and would show up on any normal coin that was ONLY hubbed with the one 1918 design,or also the one hubbed with the normal 1918 hub and a 1917 hub. So, many of the regular 1918 coins could show the same markers as the 1918/7 coin since the working die of both were hubbed at least once with the regular 1918 coin hubbing die. Whereas, if the original coin was a variety of the 1918/7 -S, the "7" wouild show in the "8", IMO. So my opinion would be not a 1918/7. Jim
Desertgem, thank you very much for your explanation of the minting process. I guess I was just so exctied to think I had something new that I didn't really think about other possibilites. I can see exactly what your saying as I read your description. I admit I did have to read it a couple of times to let it sinkin but I do see what your saying. Ohhh well I'll just have to keep my eye out for the real deal. Lucky you I'll have to start posting all of my oddities out here now for you to look at. Next to come a buffalo nickel that looks like it has Teddy Roosevelt sitting on top of it. Thanks again Mike
Mike , that is just my opinion, but usually the more simple possiblity is more often the one. If you go to a coin show, pack it along and see what others say about it. The 1943/2 nickles are another example of this design doubling. In the earlier coins, the date was punched in separately, and often repunched dates due to the person sinking the die, restruck or repositioned it (Common in many Indian Head Cents ) . Always glad to comment if the photo is large and clear ( and yours were). I rewrote it a couple of times because I knew it would be difficult to follow! Jim
